Thai-British Man injured as bullet comes through roof of his Central Pattaya home

[Keesters]

Now you know why I don't like Pattaya

No I don't as you've failed to say. Too many things in the story. Just which makes you not like Pattaya? Edited January 26, 2015 by Keesters

[rickirs]

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

What goes up, must come down. Ignoring/minimizing air resistance, which for a dense, streamlines object (like a bullet) is reasonable, it will come down nearly as hard as it left the barrel. It certainly could penetrate roof and ceiling and a few layers of flesh.

Many years ago, my boss' brand new truck came up with a big crease at the edge of the roof on New Year's day, which he reported to the police. The sergeant who took the report said that every patrol car on duty New Year's eve sat under a freeway overpass from 11:50 pm until 12:10 am to avoid falling slugs from all the idiots who fire into the air at midnight. He was serious.

At least in the US, no one launches hot-air incendiary bombs to celebrate...

I am afraid that's nowhere close to being true. Firstly, a bullet in free-fall will tumble and not come down in a streamlined fashion, that's why gun barrels are rifled. Secondly, terminal velocity for a bullet in free-fall is less than 100 m/s, whereas the muzzle velocity of a bullet fired from a small arm typically is in excess of 1,000 m/s, that's a major difference. That's not saying that it wouldn't hurt to be hit by a falling bullet, but it's very unlikely to be fatal and wouldn't penetrate a typical roof (there was a Mythbusters episode covering this subject). Check these Wikipedia articles if interested: Terminal velocity, Muzzle velocity.

That said, people seem to be jumping to conclusions here. Nowhere in the article does it say that the bullet was fired into the air. It could just as easily have been fired from a window or roof of an adjacent (taller) building.

Sophon

If the bullet were fired from a window or roof of an adjacent building, surely it must have travelled through the air to get to the victim's roof unless the injured lived under water.

[Sophon]

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

What goes up, must come down. Ignoring/minimizing air resistance, which for a dense, streamlines object (like a bullet) is reasonable, it will come down nearly as hard as it left the barrel. It certainly could penetrate roof and ceiling and a few layers of flesh.

Many years ago, my boss' brand new truck came up with a big crease at the edge of the roof on New Year's day, which he reported to the police. The sergeant who took the report said that every patrol car on duty New Year's eve sat under a freeway overpass from 11:50 pm until 12:10 am to avoid falling slugs from all the idiots who fire into the air at midnight. He was serious.

At least in the US, no one launches hot-air incendiary bombs to celebrate...

I am afraid that's nowhere close to being true. Firstly, a bullet in free-fall will tumble and not come down in a streamlined fashion, that's why gun barrels are rifled. Secondly, terminal velocity for a bullet in free-fall is less than 100 m/s, whereas the muzzle velocity of a bullet fired from a small arm typically is in excess of 1,000 m/s, that's a major difference. That's not saying that it wouldn't hurt to be hit by a falling bullet, but it's very unlikely to be fatal and wouldn't penetrate a typical roof (there was a Mythbusters episode covering this subject). Check these Wikipedia articles if interested: Terminal velocity, Muzzle velocity.

That said, people seem to be jumping to conclusions here. Nowhere in the article does it say that the bullet was fired into the air. It could just as easily have been fired from a window or roof of an adjacent (taller) building.

Sophon

If the bullet were fired from a window or roof of an adjacent building, surely it must have travelled through the air to get to the victim's roof unless the injured lived under water.

What's your point? Are you saying that you don't understand the meaning of "fired into the air"?

Sophon

[Basil B]

What goes up, must come down. Ignoring/minimizing air resistance, which for a dense, streamlines object (like a bullet) is reasonable, it will come down nearly as hard as it left the barrel. It certainly could penetrate roof and ceiling and a few layers of flesh.

Many years ago, my boss' brand new truck came up with a big crease at the edge of the roof on New Year's day, which he reported to the police. The sergeant who took the report said that every patrol car on duty New Year's eve sat under a freeway overpass from 11:50 pm until 12:10 am to avoid falling slugs from all the idiots who fire into the air at midnight. He was serious.

At least in the US, no one launches hot-air incendiary bombs to celebrate...

I am afraid that's nowhere close to being true. Firstly, a bullet in free-fall will tumble and not come down in a streamlined fashion, that's why gun barrels are rifled. Secondly, terminal velocity for a bullet in free-fall is less than 100 m/s, whereas the muzzle velocity of a bullet fired from a small arm typically is in excess of 1,000 m/s, that's a major difference. That's not saying that it wouldn't hurt to be hit by a falling bullet, but it's very unlikely to be fatal and wouldn't penetrate a typical roof (there was a Mythbusters episode covering this subject). Check these Wikipedia articles if interested: Terminal velocity, Muzzle velocity.

That said, people seem to be jumping to conclusions here. Nowhere in the article does it say that the bullet was fired into the air. It could just as easily have been fired from a window or roof of an adjacent (taller) building.

Sophon

Yes, if the bullet is fired straight up at 90 degrees, most idiot's firing a gun will do so at a raised elevation but nowhere near 90, a bullet will never travel in a straight line unless you are firing straight down as gravity has an effect, "velocity v gravity" therefore a bullet fired upwards will start to return to earth in an ark, as the bullet slows down the greater the reduction of angle and as the angle decreases there will be less reduction in speed.

And I am sure something travelling at 100m/s could do a lot of damage.

100m/s = 6k/min = 360k/hour = 223.694mph

Edited January 26, 2015 by Basil B

[balo]

It's better to live in a condo , up in one of the high floors , there you only have to worry about your weird neighbour.

[Sophon]

What goes up, must come down. Ignoring/minimizing air resistance, which for a dense, streamlines object (like a bullet) is reasonable, it will come down nearly as hard as it left the barrel. It certainly could penetrate roof and ceiling and a few layers of flesh.

Many years ago, my boss' brand new truck came up with a big crease at the edge of the roof on New Year's day, which he reported to the police. The sergeant who took the report said that every patrol car on duty New Year's eve sat under a freeway overpass from 11:50 pm until 12:10 am to avoid falling slugs from all the idiots who fire into the air at midnight. He was serious.

At least in the US, no one launches hot-air incendiary bombs to celebrate...

I am afraid that's nowhere close to being true. Firstly, a bullet in free-fall will tumble and not come down in a streamlined fashion, that's why gun barrels are rifled. Secondly, terminal velocity for a bullet in free-fall is less than 100 m/s, whereas the muzzle velocity of a bullet fired from a small arm typically is in excess of 1,000 m/s, that's a major difference. That's not saying that it wouldn't hurt to be hit by a falling bullet, but it's very unlikely to be fatal and wouldn't penetrate a typical roof (there was a Mythbusters episode covering this subject). Check these Wikipedia articles if interested: Terminal velocity, Muzzle velocity.

That said, people seem to be jumping to conclusions here. Nowhere in the article does it say that the bullet was fired into the air. It could just as easily have been fired from a window or roof of an adjacent (taller) building.

Sophon

Yes, if the bullet is fired straight up at 90 degrees, most idiot's firing a gun will do so at a raised elevation but nowhere near 90, a bullet will never travel in a straight line unless you are firing straight down as gravity has an effect, "velocity v gravity" therefore a bullet fired upwards will start to return to earth in an ark, as the bullet slows down the greater the reduction of angle and as the angle decreases there will be less reduction in speed.

And I am sure something travelling at 100m/s could do a lot of damage.

100m/s = 6k/min = 360k/hour = 223.694mph

No need for the bullet to be fired straight up for it to come tumbling down at terminal velocity. Basically anything close to 90 degrees will ensure that the bullet doesn't maintain it's ballistic trajectory because of the wind resistance acting on the bullet, so when the bullet reaches it's highest point the only significant force will be gravity and it will come down almost vertically. Yes, the bullet will not come down at the same point it was fired from, but it will still fall almost straight down because wind resistance have halted the horizontal movement (which was minimal from the start) of the bullet.

Sophon

[transam]

It's better to live in a condo , up in one of the high floors , there you only have to worry about your weird neighbour.

............and earth tremors...............

[LennyW]

It's better to live in a condo , up in one of the high floors , there you only have to worry about your weird neighbour.

............and earth tremors...............

And pigeon shat!